Yes, that's one difference all right.physics is theoretical ... and metaphysics is speculative — 180 Proof
Notice please that Planck 'regards', and not proclaims, his belief. He says it as a matter of science — god must be atheist
But the proponents of this sort of thinking can't prove that it's true. — god must be atheist
Yes, uncontroversially. This is a philosophy forum, I'm well aware of the difficulty in claiming to know anything beyond that I'm a thinking thing, but as much as one can be certain of anything else, I'm at least certain of that.
If so, why do you think it's taking so long to come up with an explanation for how the brain produces consciousness
— RogueAI
Those are not related things.
There is no necessary cause for a brain to come to understand consciousness. If humans hadn't evolved, perhaps no brain would even have a concept of consciousness. I don't think rats, crows and dolphins spend their time thinking about this stuff.
For example, suppose 1,000 years from now the Hard Problem remains. Would you reexamine your belief that consciousness arises from matter?
— RogueAI
The hard problem is not a problem, it's a protest. It's even worded by Chalmers as such. There is nothing to wait for.
As for running and legs and brains, we have an explanation for running/walking. We have no explanation for the emergence of consciousness from the actions of neurons.
— RogueAI
An of-the-gaps fallacy again. Science hasn't explained it yet, therefore it must be God/panpsychism/dualism/whatever other ism I favour.
If you find yourself making this argument, stop, catch yourself, and remember: no one finds this a good argument when it's not used in the service of their pet theory. And more honest people don't think it a good argument period.
If physical states can cause mental states, why not vice-versa?
Why should we assume physical states even exist? What evidence do you have for the existence of the non-conscious stuff these physical states are supposedly made of? — RogueAI
Think of some music. Is there music playing in your skull right now? Does your mind seem to have weight? — RogueAI
Non-conscious stuff doesn't produce consciousness. It's a category error that leads to absurdities. — RogueAI
Pretty much every other option is better than brain=mental states. — RogueAI
But if you arrange the feeling of stubbing your toe with the beauty of a sunset while listening to a Bach symphony, you don't a working brain from that. — RogueAI
Isn't this a problem for physicalists who believe in matter/energy conversion? — RogueAI
You're more certain that physical matter exists than of pretty much anything else? What do you base this high level of certainty on? — RogueAI
do you believe that something that is functionally equivalent to the brain will be conscious, whatever the substrate? — RogueAI
If science can't solve consciousness, then it's first going to appear as an "explanatory gap" until people realize science isn't equipped to solve it. — RogueAI
The reason walking/running and legs isn't like consciousness emerging is because we have an explanation for walking/running and walking and running and legs all belong to the same ontological category. We don't have an explanation for consciousness (we don't even have an agreed upon definition of it), and mental states and physical states are ontologically different things. — RogueAI
But we do spend our time thinking about such stuff, and science prides itself on its explanatory power, and in this one area, there has been a definite lack of progress that is starting to become embarrassing — RogueAI
A brain doesn't have to be conscious, so I'd word it as: something functionally equivalent to my brain would have the capacity for consciousness. You're conveying incredulity but there's no way this is news to you.
:up:↪RogueAI
Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. — Benj96
:up:This is becoming my mantra, but an objective physical universe is overwhelmingly the simplest and indeed currently only viable explanation for phenomena. — Kenosha Kid
:chin:... how do 'mental states' interact with 'physical states' without a shared (causal) ontology? — 180 Proof
Because of entropy.
It’s a lot easier for a person to produce energy from matter than it is to produce matter from energy. — Benj96
Can you name them?I have encountered many materialists who agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion in that comic. — RogueAI
Can you name them?
I am only asking because I heard many preachers say, "I've met many such and such that said such and such". I think it's a rhetoric and I am having a hard time believing it any more. If you met many materialists who said this or that, some names must have stuck in your mind.
I am fully aware that you can say, "Joe Montague, Harry Griffin, Michele Adieu, Robert Frankovic, Debbi Gaal, and Rosemary Thimble." I ask you to be honest. Did you actually met MANY materialists who said what you claim they all said?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.